To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter Sun Apr 21 17:18:29 PDT 2013 What you'll see below is an e-mail exchange between Vivek Wadhwa and me, shown here with his permission. I also told him that I will later post here his response to this posting, if he wishes. I must apologize for the length of this posting, but if H-1B is important to you--as a tech worker, as a policymaker, researcher, journalist or whatever--I believe it will be well worth your while to ead through it. Skim if you must; I'll provide some all-caps statements to help the skimmers. This will be about the age discrimination issue, H-1B etc. It's also about motivations of the players, as I discussed a few weeks ago, in addition to being about our see/hear/speak no evil Congress. PEOPLE IN CONGRESS HEAR WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR, AND/OR WHAT THEY EXPECT TO HEAR. Everyone involved with the H-1B issue on the Hill knows that Vivek is a strong proponent of expanding tech worker programs--but probably almost none of them knows that Vivek has stated numerous times that we do NOT have a STEM labor shortage. Yet Vivek is billed as a pro-industry speaker, so they just naturally assume that he supports the industry party line of STEM labor shortage. Similarly, as you'll see below in Vivek's response, he notes his agreement with me that Congress is wrong to target the Indian bodyshops in legislation. And yet, since he supports the industry views on other things, Congress takes it for granted that he, too, blames the Indians. (After all, with the exceptions of him and me, no one else is objecting to this scapegoating, including among critics of H-1B.) Note, by the way, that he states in his response that the age issue pervades the entire industry, including the big mainstream firms. As I've said, I regard Vivek as a friend. I sometimes find some of his comments irritating, and sometimes he has objected to my statements. If you haven't read it yet, there is a hair-raising ride to be had at http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/ChangingFaceOfAm.txt But all that comes with the territory, and I'm fond of pointing out that Vivek and I agree on most aspects of the H-1B and green card issues. Hence I will sometimes be rather blunt below. Nothing personal, Vivek. :-) The other day Vivek sent me e-mail, titled, "This one's for you :-)" (complete with emoticon), notifying me of his blog post: http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2013/04/19/weekend-read-vivek-wadhwa-the-t ruth-about-the-age-premium/ I agree with most (though not all) of it, but my problem here is that Vivek refuses to relate the age issue to H-1B. I said as much ("1500 words but not a single one on H-1B") in my reply to him. He denied the connection, so I ASKED HIM TO GIVE HIS VIEWS ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, with his responses to be posted here in my e-newsletter: 1. What is the typical career longevity of a programmer? (Of course, I mean it as a generic term, so that it includes those with Software Engineer titles.) 2. You once said that older programmers typically won't be hired, even if they have the currently-fashionable skill sets. Your blog posting basically says that too, with the exception of "rock star" programmers. Am I reading it correctly? 3. You implicitly are saying that the age problem pervades the industry, including the large mainstream firms, right? 4. You suggest that programmers plan on eventually transitioning to non-programming jobs in the tech industry, say management. Are there sufficient numbers of such jobs, if most programmers sought them? 5. Is there a shortage of programmers? (I will freely interchange thie terms "programmer" and "engineer," because the industry likes to do so. The fact is that most of the tech industry H-1Bs are doing programming, under whatever job title.) As Vivek's response is rather lengthy, I'm including it as an "appendix" at the end of this posting. Here are my comments: I was particularly interested in Vivek's answer to my Question 5. He has in the past stated many times that we don't have a tech labor shortage. Though with a bit of hedging here and there, VIVEK REAFFIRMS HIS PAST STATEMENTS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A SHORTAGE. Vivek also reaffirms his past statements that THE SHUNNING BY THE INDUSTRY OF THE OLDER ENGINEERS IS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY A QUESTION OF SKILLS. Note my key word "fundamentally, by which I mean that even if an older programmer has the exact skill set required for a job, he/she will still probably not even get a phone interview. I contend that there are far more older people with up-to-date skills than Vivek realizes. Vivek mentions tablet programming, for instance, and just a few weeks ago I posted information about an older programmer looking for work, who had just written a clever Android game. I trust that Vivek downloaded it and has been playing the game on his tablet. Moreover, note that Vivek concedes in his blog that when an employer hires a new graduate, that worker "has no skills." This is absolutely correct. Most schools don't teach Android, for instance. Something like that is typically picked up on one's own, as the older programmer did whom I mentioned above. This directly contradicts one of the industry lobbyists' favoriate talking points--immediately accepted by gullible journalists and congressional staffers--that "only the new graduates have the latest skill sets." (Unfortunately, Vivek also contradicts himself, saying in his response, "...most computer programmers who received their technical training even a decade ago aren't up to date.") As Vivek pointed out, the older programmer is just too expensive. And as he knows, the vast majority of H-1Bs are young. In other words: 1. No shortage. 2. Older people not hired, too expensive. 3. H-1Bs hired, most of them young. Isn't the conclusion inescapable, Vivek? H-1B AND THE TECH AGE DISCRIMINATION ISSUE ARE INTIMATELY RELATED. But there is more, something even more salient: In Vivek's response, he repeatedly brings up money. Older programmers are too expensive. Moving engineers to higher-demand regions is too expensive. Startups can't afford to pay market rates. In other words, H-1B IS ABOUT SAVING MONEY, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I've pointed this out before. It's not just what I've called Type I salary savings, but also Type II (age-related) and various other ways of saving money. Did you catch that last type above, concerning startups? Vivek says ########################### ...we need to differentiate between the companies that I have been fighting for--tech startups in Silicon Valley, and the big employers. Startups truly are starved for talent and can't afford to hire experienced, high-paid workers. Startups drive innovation and US economic growth. They should get preference for H1B visas and not have to compete with the big employers... ########################### And in his blog, Vivek said, ########################### It can be difficult for some companies to justify paying the age premium. For tech startups in particular, it always boils down to cost: Most can’t even afford to pay $60,000 salaries, so they look for motivated, young software developers who will accept minimum wage in return for equity ownership and the opportunity to build their careers. We can blame the employer, but in a free economy you can’t really force any company to hire workers who have the wrong skills or to pay higher salaries. Larger companies develop products for global markets and have global workforces. They will hire where they can get the best skill for the best price. ########################### In other words, VIVEK IS SAYING WE NEED H-1BS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE STARTUPS WITH CUT-RATE ENGINEERS. I don't share Vivek's enthusiasm for startups--only a tiny percentage do anything commericially viable or enhancing to technology--but in any case, to advocate shunting aside U.S. citizens and permanent residents in order to give a subsidy to the almighty startups is astounding. All that talk of a "free economy" hides the fact that H-1B amounts to a government subsidy (as the late Milton Friedman pointed out). And, as I've emphasized before (Vivek has brought it up once or twice too), the startup CEOs get an even better subsidy from the H-1B/green card process--the ability to handcuff their workers, preventing them from leaving to another employer in the midst of an urgent project. To many employers, this is much more important even than saving in wages--and it makes hiring similarly-qualifed American workers unattractive. Vivek raises another point in his blog: ########################### Finally, I don’t know of any university, including the ones I teach at, that tells its engineering students what to expect in the long term or how to manage their technical careers. Perhaps it is time to let students know what lies ahead and prepare them for their difficult careers. ########################### He then says in his response to me, ########################### Everyone knows programming is an "up or out" profession. But this is rarely discussed--except by Venture Capitalists defending their portfolios of young entrepreneurs--because this could be called "age discrimination". ########################### Excellent point, Vivek, but clearly it is NOT true that "everyone knows this." As you yourself state in your blog (see above), the STUDENTS don't know this. And you righly castigate the universities for not telling them. Indeed, the universities are even more culpable than you realized, because they imply that you CAN do engineering throughout your career. The University of Washington CS Dept. whose longtime (until recently) chair Ed Lazowska has been the most enthusiastic prominent academic supporter of H-1B, paints the usual "lifelong learning" picture (http://www.cs.washington.edu/prospective_students/undergrad): ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ When you graduate with a CSE B.S. in Computer Science or Computer Engineering, you will be able to engage in successful careers...The department will prepare you well to adapt to the new technologies, tools and methodologies... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ As Vivek says, it is not in employers' financial interests to allow engineers to "adapt to the new technologies, tools and methodologies..." throughout their careers. I don't mean training--any good engineer can learn on his/her own--but the employers won't hire them. I think not many of you know my background in this respect. I've been programming since age 17, including my first paid programming work at age 18. I worked in Silicon Valley for a while, and since then have among other things been writing open source software used by people all over the world. I would guess that Vivek hasn't programmed for years, but I program more often than I drive a car (the latter being 2-3 days per week). I've always been self taught. Contrary to Vivek's blog statement that the new grads "will [more] rapidly learn the latest coding methods and techniques," my long experience enables me to learn new programming languages etc. much more quickly than I did in my early career. And way back when I worked in Silicon Valley, a few years before H-1B was enacted, it was normal for people to program throughout their careers. The up-or-out pattern that Vivek says "everyone knows" today didn't exist then. And I submit that H-1B made the difference. And as to Vivek's implied question as to WHY the universities keep this from those students, where's the mystery? Obviously the answer is that IT IS IN UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS' BEST INTERESTS NOT TO BRING THIS UP, FOR FEAR OF SCARING THE STUDENTS AWAY. And, with all due respect to Vivek, it was not in his best interests to bring up the age issue in his testimony. He does passionately believe we should bring in more foreign workers, and if he wants to get that message across on Capitol Hill, he can't undermine it by saying, "Yes, this will displace older American workers, but it's worth it." I do give him credit for bringing it up in prominent places elsewhere, but I wish he would tell it directly to the people who most need to hear it. Norm Archived at http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/VivekOnAge.txt ******************* Vivek's response 1. The problem in programming is that hardware and software technologies are changing at an ever increasing pace. As these change, the needs of employers change. Some programmers do stay current and they excel, but the majority of can't keep pace will the rapid changes in technology. Today the "action" is on tablet-computing devices and most computer programmers who received their technical training even a decade ago aren't up to date. That is the root of the problem--and why we are having these debates. 2. It is no doubt harder for an older programmer with old computer languages and platforms on his resume to get interviews. Once they are interviewed, the "rock stars" rarely have a difficulty getting a high paying job. The rest--who have average skills and expect to make the same salaries that they made when their skills had peak market value have a hard time getting employed. 3. The age problem pervades the technology industry--and many other industries including journalism (as journalists have told me). Everyone knows programming is an "up or out" profession. But this is rarely discussed--except by Venture Capitalists defending their portfolios of young entrepreneurs--because this could be called "age discrimination". 4. No there are not enough management jobs so programmers have to diversify into other fields--such as Quality Assurance, Sales, Marketing, Finance, etc. I am not saying this is right, I am describing the harsh reality of the engineering profession. During my tech days, I hired many programmers over 50 and these were my most steady, loyal, and trusted employees. 5. There is no general shortage of programmers or engineers--there are regional shortages of programmers with the right skills. In Silicon Valley, New York, and Boston, for example, tech companies find it difficult to hire programmers with the right hardware and software skills. They offer higher than average salaries. One of the biggest problems with the US programming workforce is its lack of mobility. People who have made close to six-figure salaries and who live outside these tech centers are reluctant to relocate their families without guarantees of high paying jobs. Others can't afford to live in expensive places like Silicon Valley and New York while they get to know the local community, update their skills according to the needs of companies there, and start what amounts to a new career. On another matter--where we agree. Vilifying the Indian companies is the wrong thing to do because we are fixing the wrong problem. First, we need to differentiate between the companies that I have been fighting for--tech startups in Silicon Valley, and the big employers. Startups truly are starved for talent and can't afford to hire experienced, high-paid workers. Startups drive innovation and US economic growth. They should get preference for H1B visas and not have to compete with the big employers. They need people when they are ready to grow and can't wait for quotas to open up like the big players can. They also can't afford the bureaucracy and delays. Slapping higher fees on Indian companies won't achieve anything because the money that is raised from these really doesn't reach the people it is meant to help. A better solution would be to require that all large companies train an American worker for every one or two foreign workers that they hire. See this experiment that Infosys did: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/idUS112793+20-Jul-2012+PRN20120720 and http://beyond-it-inc.com/GKEblog/tag/wayne-county-community-college. It showed that automotive workers and war veterans could be trained to become programmers and gain high paying jobs. Yes, this is the same Infosys that we vilify. Bottom line: we need to understand the real problem and rather than declaring foreigners the enemy and we need better focused assistance for workers who are impacted by technology change. Vivek